Da Dice Campaign 2.O | Let us take it beyond best!

[ndnh]

NEW  >>

Report Signature (or Avatar) Abuse : http://goo.gl/forms/UMS9g1sylQ


Comments, What I should improve on, etc.  : http://goo.gl/forms/qfSNMPpMr4




(Discussions from https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=990799.0 may be continued here.)

Updated on July 5, 2015

[1713547617]

1713547617

[1713547617]

1713547617

[shorena]

-snip-
That is a reasonable point, whatever you post in a foreign language section is basically unmoderated.  Nevertheless, I think I also have a valid point which is don't these guys want the advertising there?  Also, couldn't the campaign manager communicate with the moderator of that subforum if someone was making rubbish posts.  I imagine that one of the conditions of being a subforum moderator would be the ability to communicate in English.

Lets assume for a second that a manager is looking for constructive posters instead of constructive posts (see my earlier post[1]). In that case the manager of said campaign could hire someone trustworthy that understand the language spoken in the local section. This person could judge the overal quality of the posts of someone applying and maybe reevaluate after some time. This would allow the managers to advertise in local sections and still maintain a reasonable quality of post(s/ers). I think certain section would certainly be worth the investment. E.g. if the site you are advertising for is also available in russian/chinese/thai it makes no sense to leave those markets out of the picture. Esp. China is huge in terms of bitcoin.

-snip-
Not only would the advertiser benefit but the system should, at least in theory, increase the average quality of posts across the board since it would provide an incentive for users to create higher quality posts.

I would argue not only does the board (or system) benefit, but its essential to keep signature campaigns an option for admins. I dont think a bot can do this currently either, but I think bitmixer.io is not high enough of the pay per post scale to make a big difference in spam. Esp. since it has no lower limit in posts its an excelent campaign for those that dont post much.

-snip-
Of course you're right that this is indeed beyond the scope of most signature ad campaigns but in fact we might have the technology to do this, given the work.  Imagine you train a classifier on the posts of a thread and then measure the perplexity of a given post with respect to that thread, I wonder if you could find the right set of features such that this sort of framework could be a proxy for "constructiveness".  

The question remains who defines what constructive is. As we can see with this thread, there is no easy answer. Anyone of us has a feeling for a posts constructiveness, but its hard to quantify. You cant say this post has 4/7 constructiveness. AI systems do not necessarily need to quantify things to judge them, but who should train such an AI? Maybe if we had 1 billion $ for the new board...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=995029.new#new

Thread will be locked soon. You can continue the discussion there.

Ill just post this there I guess


[1] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=990799.msg10789271#msg10789271

[erikalui]

The limit per week whether min or max should be removed as some members who post constructively make very few posts and it gets difficult to reach the minimum of 20 posts for them but their posts might benefit the campaign 

[shorena]

The limit per week whether min or max should be removed as some members who post constructively make very few posts and it gets difficult to reach the minimum of 20 posts for them but their posts might benefit the campaign 

I think a maximum number of posts is reasonable as it discourages spam. To be honest I get paid very well for 100 posts, Im not even sure I actually made 100 last week, but I trust ndnhc did double check the count. I think Quickseller is somewhere in the region of ~150 posts per week. If someone posts that much its fine, but there should not be an incententive beyond a certain number of posts. There have been unlimited campaigns in the past (e.g. Primedice) and it always caused problems. Im not sure if Bit-X is still without upper limit. Seeing the number of banned accounts with their signature recently, they are proving my point.

I can also understand the reason behind a minimum number of posts. Our manager wants active participants not seemingly dead accounts. I still think it would be a nice guesture to pay those that are activly posting in a constructive way, but just cant reach the minimum. I did not check whether this was done though. Im also a bit biased on this, because I know there will be a time in the future when the semester break is over and I might have trouble reaching the minimum requirements. On the other hand its either a big enough deal for me to switch campaigns or not and keep the signature regardless.

I tend to go for casinos, because I like to gamble. If I like the casino I might as well keep the signature (esp. with a ref link) even though I dont get paid for it. DADICE has an unfinished feeling atm, but thats expected and normal in the beginning. Their admins work hard to improve the site and if they keep doing that we might see another established casino with crowd investors.

[shulio]

I think the maximum of 100 is already hard for me to achieve since it is mentioned that it is a 100 constructive post even if you made more than 100, some could get excluded because it is not constructive enough, bu i voted to raise the maximum to encourage more great poster to join this campaign and also to encourage that poster like quickseller or shorena to be paid more since they always exceeded the 100 constructive post mark

[erikalui]

I think a maximum number of posts is reasonable as it discourages spam. To be honest I get paid very well for 100 posts, Im not even sure I actually made 100 last week, but I trust ndnhc did double check the count. I think Quickseller is somewhere in the region of ~150 posts per week. If someone posts that much its fine, but there should not be an incententive beyond a certain number of posts. There have been unlimited campaigns in the past (e.g. Primedice) and it always caused problems. Im not sure if Bit-X is still without upper limit. Seeing the number of banned accounts with their signature recently, they are proving my point.

I can also understand the reason behind a minimum number of posts. Our manager wants active participants not seemingly dead accounts. I still think it would be a nice guesture to pay those that are activly posting in a constructive way, but just cant reach the minimum. I did not check whether this was done though. Im also a bit biased on this, because I know there will be a time in the future when the semester break is over and I might have trouble reaching the minimum requirements. On the other hand its either a big enough deal for me to switch campaigns or not and keep the signature regardless.

I tend to go for casinos, because I like to gamble. If I like the casino I might as well keep the signature (esp. with a ref link) even though I dont get paid for it. DADICE has an unfinished feeling atm, but thats expected and normal in the beginning. Their admins work hard to improve the site and if they keep doing that we might see another established casino with crowd investors.

Probably you're right about the min and max posts but those who make 10+ posts constructively, they could get a chance if the min post count isn't limited.

Also, since this campaign is taking into account constructive posts only and is stricter than other campaigns, the spamming could be controlled. Just my opinion.

[arallmuus]

Probably you're right about the min and max posts but those who make 10+ posts constructively, they could get a chance if the min post count isn't limited.

Also, since this campaign is taking into account constructive posts only and is stricter than other campaigns, the spamming could be controlled. Just my opinion.

this is a good quote from ndnhc

Never post for the campaign. Post because you want to post.

post because you wanted to post for the forum , to actually voice your opinions here, therefore i voted to not put in any minimum limit, if a guy manage only 1 constructive post, he should be paid for his effort
making a post limit of 20 posts to get paid will only decrease the quality of the post as some people tend to catch this up at the last minutes



I guess this is how the campaign gonna hold of spammers, actually a good idea

A few has been removed for this week.

Enrollment will be stricter from this week. Based on previous post quality. There may be a few denied from this week.

[ndnh]

Special Announcement!

The minimum post restriction has been waived for very good quality posters.

The bonus has been changed to 0.1BTC each for top 3 constructive posters every week..

[arallmuus]

Special Announcement!

The minimum post restriction has been waived for very good quality posters.

The bonus has been changed to 0.1BTC for top 3 constructive posters.

does this mean that there will be a 0.1 x 3 bonus each week for the constructive poster or 3 of the week constructive poster will share the bonus among them?

[ndnh]

Special Announcement!

The minimum post restriction has been waived for very good quality posters.

The bonus has been changed to 0.1BTC for top 3 constructive posters.

does this mean that there will be a 0.1 x 3 bonus each week for the constructive poster or 3 of the week constructive poster will share the bonus among them?

Yeah, there will be 3 winners of 0.1BTC each every week.


Oops, I will edit that to make it more proper. In the Signature thread OP, it was done right, I think.

[arallmuus]

Special Announcement!

The minimum post restriction has been waived for very good quality posters.

The bonus has been changed to 0.1BTC for top 3 constructive posters.

does this mean that there will be a 0.1 x 3 bonus each week for the constructive poster or 3 of the week constructive poster will share the bonus among them?

Yeah, there will be 3 winners of 0.1BTC each every week.


Oops, I will edit that to make it more proper. In the Signature thread OP, it was done right, I think.

I think this is much better words to express that it is actually 3 x 0.1 bonus

BONUS
A bonus of 0.1BTC will be awarded to each of the TOP 3 Constructive Posters every weeks!

anyway im up for correction since English isnt my native language

[tspacepilot]

Special Announcement!

The minimum post restriction has been waived for very good quality posters.

The bonus has been changed to 0.1BTC each for top 3 constructive posters every week..

Oh this is pretty exciting.  I think I may have a chance to end up in the top 3 but there was no way I was gonna outshine Quickseller/Shorena/allusmus.  Also, I was about to post about removing the minimum post requirement (not that I've had a hard time reaching it), just that at approx 1 mBTC per post even one post is quite above the dust limit and, as you say, people should post because they feel inspired to do so, not because they are in a campaign.

Excellent news and good decision, IMO.

[ndnh]

Thanks


Well, I want all of your opinion regarding what payout should each board get:
Like we can say: (with random amounts)
Gambling section gets 1.25x
Other marketplace boards get 1.1x
Offtopic gets 0.1x
Meta gets 0.25x?

etc..


Also, since we don't rely on a bot to do the counting, do you have any ideas we could implement in making this er.. weighted counting more efficient?
(that is assuming we differentiate between constructive and non-constructive)

[tspacepilot]

Thanks


Well, I want all of your opinion regarding what payout should each board get:
Like we can say: (with random amounts)
Gambling section gets 1.25x
Other marketplace boards get 1.1x
Offtopic gets 0.1x
Meta gets 0.25x?

etc..


Also, since we don't rely on a bot to do the counting, do you have any ideas we could implement in making this er.. weighted counting more efficient?
(that is assuming we differentiate between constructive and non-constructive)

I wrote something about this in the main campaign thread (whoops) but I'll reiterate here for convenience sake.  I hope you do not go down this route.  As you insinuate, counting will become more difficult and what's more, we begin to have an incentive to post in boards we wouldn't otherwise post in because of the weights.  You have reiterated "post because you want to post" but implenting weights for subfora works against this, IMO.

[arallmuus]

Thanks


Well, I want all of your opinion regarding what payout should each board get:
Like we can say: (with random amounts)
Gambling section gets 1.25x
Other marketplace boards get 1.1x
Offtopic gets 0.1x
Meta gets 0.25x?

etc..


Also, since we don't rely on a bot to do the counting, do you have any ideas we could implement in making this er.. weighted counting more efficient?
(that is assuming we differentiate between constructive and non-constructive)

I dont think this is actually a good idea, this rules will encourage people to spam the marketplace, especially the gambling boards as people want higher payment

All boards should be equal except those of games and rounds, investor based and off-topic,

[erikalui]

I wrote something about this in the main campaign thread (whoops) but I'll reiterate here for convenience sake.  I hope you do not go down this route.  As you insinuate, counting will become more difficult and what's more, we begin to have an incentive to post in boards we wouldn't otherwise post in because of the weights.  You have reiterated "post because you want to post" but implenting weights for subfora works against this, IMO.

Exactly and completely agree with you. People will start posting mainly in the GAMBLING section and avoid the other sections of the forum and I am not saying all will do that but since that section has a higher weight age, they will restrict their posts to that section which shouldn't be the case. Only people who gamble should post there else others may do it just for the campaign.

[ndnh]

Thanks


Well, I want all of your opinion regarding what payout should each board get:
Like we can say: (with random amounts)
Gambling section gets 1.25x
Other marketplace boards get 1.1x
Offtopic gets 0.1x
Meta gets 0.25x?

etc..


Also, since we don't rely on a bot to do the counting, do you have any ideas we could implement in making this er.. weighted counting more efficient?
(that is assuming we differentiate between constructive and non-constructive)

I wrote something about this in the main campaign thread (whoops) but I'll reiterate here for convenience sake.  I hope you do not go down this route.  As you insinuate, counting will become more difficult and what's more, we begin to have an incentive to post in boards we wouldn't otherwise post in because of the weights.  You have reiterated "post because you want to post" but implenting weights for subfora works against this, IMO.

Well, you still post where you want to post.
You don't have to post in a board just because it has more payout. It won't be a big difference. May be a small increase. Anyway, it is dadice who suggested. We are discussing on it. After that when we reach a conclusion, we can talk more about that.

Yes, it is going to be a pain to count the posts like that. So, we need a method in case it is adopted.

[ndnh]

Well, there is a way to count it indicatively https://docs.google.com/forms/d/14mkNdaj0AYWkThqX1pbVLQUtjvOucg-Iuhr0OY6ppfc/viewform?usp=send_form  (so that we can avoid variations due to human error)


I will start a poll, on the weightage issue soon. But first let us be patient, and wait for the discussion to be over. Otherwise, you won't know what you are fighting against.

Here are the points we have till now:
Pros:
1. Effective advertising (negatives are in cons)
2. Most likely, all boards, even off-topic will have some weight.

Cons:
1. Promotes spam
2. Gets people to post in where they don't really want to?

etc. Let us not discuss this any further for 24 to 48 hours.

[shorena]

Well, there is a way to count it indicatively https://docs.google.com/forms/d/14mkNdaj0AYWkThqX1pbVLQUtjvOucg-Iuhr0OY6ppfc/viewform?usp=send_form  (so that we can avoid variations due to human error)
-snip-

I filled that form, not sure what you get out of it though. Maybe you can shed some light on it when you are back.

[ndnh]

Well, there is a way to count it indicatively https://docs.google.com/forms/d/14mkNdaj0AYWkThqX1pbVLQUtjvOucg-Iuhr0OY6ppfc/viewform?usp=send_form  (so that we can avoid variations due to human error)
-snip-

I filled that form, not sure what you get out of it though. Maybe you can shed some light on it when you are back.

Go to the old spreadsheet and click on 'New Enrollees'  tab and you will see your entry there.

(I removed your entry though. Double entry plus the post count you entered is more than the post count we are supposed to start counting from)